Gomez v. SingletaryGomez v. Singletary
OVERTON, J.
This case concerns the consolidated petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioners Alejandro Gomez, Alex David Goodwin, Steven Kivett, Jeffrey Lynn Hock, and Giovanni Galvis. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
I. The Various Overcrowding Programs
Since the early 1970s, Florida has had a severe prison overcrowding problem which has resulted in the closing of Florida‘s prison system several times. See Costello v. Wainwright, 397 F.Supp. 20, 22 (M.D.Fla.1975), aff‘d 525 F.2d 1239 (5th Cir.1976). In 1980, the Florida Department of Corrections (the Department) entered into a consent decree that provided for the capping of the prison population within certain limits. Id.
As explained below, over the years, the legislature enacted a maze of overcrowding gain time statutes with differing names and requirements. Pursuant to the consent decree in Costello, and as a part of the Correctional Reform Act of 1983, the legislature enacted the Emergency Gain Time statute. See
The Department of Corrections (hereafter the Department) made its first overcrowding awards under the Administrative Gain Time statute in February of 1987. It awarded a total of 720 days of Administrative Gain Time to individual prisoners between February of 1987 and June 30, 1988. Effective July 1, 1988, the Administrative Gain Time statute was repealed2 and the Provisional Credits statute took its place, with a triggering percentile threshold of 97.5. See
The Provisional Credits statute was in effect from July 1, 1988, through June 16, 1993. During this time the Department awarded a total of 1860 days of Provisional Credits to individual prisoners between July 1988 and January 18, 1991. It is very significant that the award of credits under both Administrative Gain Time and Provisional Credits programs was administered pursuant to a computer program without an individual review of inmate records. It proved to be unpopular both with the public and with state officials because several notorious early releasees committed new violent crimes.
In an effort to provide a better, more tailored method of reducing prison overcrowding, the Control Release Program was enacted by the legislature, effective September 1, 1990, with a triggering percentage threshold of 97.5%. See
On January 18, 1991, the Department stopped awarding overcrowding credits under the 98% triggering threshold of the prior credits program because the Commission was awarding allotments when the 97.5% percentage threshold was reached.
In 1993, the legislature repealed the Provisional Credits statute. See
At the time of their offenses, all five petitioners were eligible for prison overcrowding credits (either Emergency Gain Time, Administrative Gain Time, or Provisional Credits). However, by the time all but petitioner Hock had reached the Department‘s custody, the petitioners had already either been made effectively ineligible, or the entire program had been repealed. Accordingly, petitioners Galvis, Kivett, Gomez, and Goodwin were never awarded any overcrowding credits.4 The following is a summary of the five slightly different scenarios of each of the petitions:
Petitioner Galvis was convicted of a drug trafficking offense committed on September 24, 1992. At that time, several programs were in effect: the Emergency Gain Time statute, with a threshold of 99%; the Provisional Credits program, with a threshold of 98%; and the Control Release program, with a threshold of 97.5%. Galvis was eligible for Emergency Gain Time, but ineligible for any other credits until after he had finished serving the fifteen-year mandatory minimum.5
Petitioner Kivett was convicted of manslaughter committed on October 18, 1987. At that time the following overcrowding programs were in effect: the Emergency Gain Time program, with a threshold of 99%; and the Administrative Gain Time program, with a threshold of 98%. Kivett was eligible for both of those programs. Kivett was offense-eligible for Control Release consideration but after consideration, the Commission found Kivett to be a release risk and assigned him a non-advanceable
Petitioner Gomez was convicted of a second-degree murder committed on September 11, 1986. At that time, the only overcrowding program in effect was the Emergency Gain Time program, with a threshold of 99%. Gomez was eligible under that statute. However, the Department did not receive custody of Gomez until March 9, 1993. At that time, overcrowding allotments were being awarded under the Control Release program and Gomez was not eligible for Control Release.
Petitioner Goodwin was convicted of a DUI manslaughter committed on May 6, 1989. At that time, the Emergenсy Gain Time statute was in effect with a threshold of 99%; the Provisional Credits statute was also in effect, with a threshold of 97.5%; and Goodwin was eligible for those programs. However, Goodwin was not received into the Department‘s custody until April 28, 1994, which was after the Provisional Credits program had been repealed. Goodwin, like Kivett, was offense-eligible for Control Release consideration, but was deemed to be a release-risk and assigned a non-advanceable date.
Petitioner Hock was convicted of a second-degree murder committed on October 1, 1988. At that time the following programs were in effect: the Emergency Gain Time statute, with a threshold of 99%, and the Provisional Credits statute with a threshold of 97.5%. Hock was eligible for both those programs and received 360 days of Provisional Credits between May 1990 and January 18, 1991. After that date, overcrowding allotments were awarded pursuant to the Control Release program and Hock was ineligible for that program. Hock‘s 360 days of Provisional Credits were canceled in 1993, but restored in 1997, as explained in footnote 4.
In this case, the petitioners argue that under Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981), as reaffirmed in Lynce, they should have been awarded overcrowding gain time credits because, at the time of their offenses, they were eligible for at least one of the various versions of overcrowding gain-time credits. Except for Hock, they were never awarded any overcrowding credits because such credits were no longer available to them by the time they entered the Department‘s custody and they were effectively ineligible for Control Release. They allege that they are entitled to relief because the statutes which were enacted after their offenses were more onerous than the ones in effect at time of their offenses and the application of those statutes resulted in their having to serve longer sentences. They assert that not only should they have been awarded either Emergency Gain Time, Administrative Gain Time or Provisional Credits, but the State should not have been able to make them effectively ineligible for any type of overcrowding credits by substituting the Control Release Program for the prior programs. They further assert that prison overcrowding continued for a number of years even after the substitution of the Control Release program. They conclude, therefore, that all the petitioners should have received and continued receiving either Emergency Gain Time, Administrative Gain Time or Provisional Credits (as the case may be) until late 1994 or even later.
The State argues that the petitioners are not entitled to these credits and argues that the United States Supreme Court‘s decision in Lynce only requires the reinstatement of credits for those inmates who actually received credits which were subsequently cancelled. Since these inmates never received any overcrowding credits6
II. Analysis under Lynce v. Mathis
In Lynce, petitioner Lynce argued that, like regular gain time,7 prison overcrowding credits could constitute part of an inmate‘s sentence because a “prisoner‘s eligibility for reduced imprisonment is a significant factor entering into both the defendant‘s decision to plea bargain and the judge‘s calculation of the sentence to be imposed.” Lynce, 519 U.S. at 445-46, 117 S.Ct. 891 (quoting Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 32, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981)). The State argued that with prison overcrowding credits, the above-mentioned reliance argument was not present because at the time of the plea bargain and sentencing, the petitioner could not have reasonably expected to receive any such credits given that the State could have alleviated the prison overcrowding problem by other means by the time the inmate reached prison. Accordingly, the State argued, unlike regular gain time, the existence or amount of prison overcrowding is always speculative. The United States Supreme Court found this argument unpersuasive in Lynce‘s case because “the actual course of events [made] it unnecessary to speculate about what might have happened.” Lynce, 519 U.S. at 446, 117 S.Ct. 891. Stated another way, in Lynce, no one had to “speculate” about whether the contingency of the relevant prison overcrowding threshold might be reached during Lynce‘s incarceration so as to allow for such awards because it was reached during Lynce‘s incarceration, and he was awarded a specific number of Prоvisional Credits. The Court, therefore, made clear that, for ex post facto purposes, there is no difference between regular gain time and prison overcrowding gain time.
In this case as well, there is no need to engage in such speculation because prison overcrowding did reach the relevant percentages in 1993 and but for the effective repeals of the earlier programs, the petitioners would have received credits and their sentences would have been reduced.
There is a distinction, however, between this case and Lynce. In Lynce, the issue was whether the petitioners’ credits should be restored. In this case, the issue is whether the petitioners should receive the overcrowding credits they would have received if the actual overcrowding mechanism which was in effect at the time of their offense had continued in effect. In other words, in this case, there was no cancellation of overcrowding credits already awarded. Accordingly, it is at least arguable that the circumstances present in Lynce are not present here. Nevertheless, the Lynce Court specifically relied on and cited extensively to Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981), which is quite similar to this case.
In Weaver, the Department attempted to alter the manner of awarding basic and incentive gain time which resulted in a reduction in the availability of gain time. The Supreme Court found that because “the new provision constricts the inmate‘s opportunity to earn early release, [it]
As mentioned above, the Department asserts that the petitioners are not entitled to relief because Secretary Singletary would not have exercised his discretion under the Provisional Credits statute to continue to award Provisional Credits, because he felt that the Control Release program was a better program. While we agree that the Control Release progrаm certainly seems to have been better designed to ensure public safety and that the Secretary might have had the discretion to refuse to award any type of overcrowding credits, we do not believe that the Ex Post Facto Clause gives the Secretary the discretion to choose to allow the implementation of the later, more onerous Control Release statute to these inmates in place of the statutes which were in effect at the time of their offenses.
Accordingly, we are compelled by the United States Supreme Court‘s decision in Lynce to conclude that for these inmates, the substitution of the Control Release program for the earlier programs resulted in an ex post facto violation under Weaver.
Our decision today is consistent with our recent decision in Britt v. Chiles, 704 So.2d 1046 (Fla.1997). In that case, this Court rejected the State‘s argument that a change in the gain time forfeiture statute which increased the amount of gain time forfeitable was not subject to the Ex Post Facto Clause because it was too contingent upon future events. This Court granted the petition because the statute “eliminate[d] an inmate‘s opportunity to earn incentive gain-time” for a certain amount of time after a disciplinary infraction was committed. Britt, 704 So.2d at 1047-48. This Court specifically likened the situation in Britt to that in Weaver, because by reducing the ability to earn gain time after a disciplinary infraction, the Department was essentially “curtailing the availability of future credits [and therefore] it effectively postpone[d] the date when [an inmate] would become eligible for early release.” Britt, id. at 1046-47 (first brackets added)(quoting Lynce, 519 U.S. at 442, 117 S.Ct. 891). Accordingly, we grant the instant consolidated petition and order the Department to apply the version of the overcrowding statute in effect at the time of each petitioner‘s offense.
III. The Remedy
The Department has provided detailed charts showing the actual prison рopulation over the years as compared to the relevant lawful capacity levels. The difference between these numbers is the amount of overcrowding present during the pertinent years. The Department also set forth charts presenting several possible ways of providing for the award of credits were we to grant the petition. The Department has made its calculation based both on the actual levels of prison overcrowding and on certain data projections for time periods for which the Department does not have actual numbers.
The petitioners contest the Department‘s proposed relief because they argue that the use of the Control Release statute to reduce prison overcrowding by releasing the less risky inmates reduced the actual level of prison overcrowding, thereby reducing the аmount of credit now due to the petitioners.
We conclude that if the legislature had maintained the percentage threshold for Control Release at below 97.5%, by releasing the less dangerous inmates on Control Release at that lower level, that action would probably have prevented the overcrowding levels from reaching the higher threshold levels. If those thresholds
The petitioners also argue that for the years in which Control Release allotments were awarded they should receive the much highеr number of Control Release allotments that were given to the Control Release eligible inmates. We conclude that under the Ex Post Facto Clause, the petitioners are only entitled to the number of credits that should have been awarded under the prior statutes, not what other inmates were actually awarded under the Control Release program. To do otherwise would result in an undue windfall for the petitioners.10
The petitioners also argue that those inmates who were only eligible for Emergency Gain Time at the time of their offenses should be awarded continuing amounts of early release credits totaling much more than the amount determinable by the Emergency Gain Time statute itself. See
According to subsections (1) and (2) of section 944.598, when the threshold level was surpassed, the Secretary was given authority to award up to thirty days Emergency Gain Time, in five-day increments, to the еntire eligible inmate population. Subsection (2), however, makes clear that these “across-the-board” awards were limited to a certain period of time. If after fifteen days overcrowding continued despite the awards made under subsection (2), subsection (3) became activated.11 Under subsection (3), prison overcrowding was further alleviated by awarding credits to a different, more limited group of inmates. These inmates would then be
We believe that the United States Supreme Court‘s somewhat different interpretation of that statute in Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433, 448 n. 18, 117 S.Ct. 891, 137 L.Ed.2d 63 (1997), was not intended to control the manner in which the appropriate remedy should be calculated (in fact, the Supreme Court did not mention subsection (3) at all). On the contrary, the Supreme Court‘s discussion of that statute was merely a reaffirmation of the “core Ex Post Facto” argument that all the later overcrowding statutes were really the same, at least for purposes of deciding whether a later statute was merely a “revamping” of the prior statute. In other words, we believe that the Supreme Court‘s discussion of that statute was only meant to reject the Department of Corrections’ assertions in that case that all the separate overcrowding statutes had nothing to do with each other and that an inmate‘s entitlement to overcrowding credits under one statute terminated upon the enactment of a new statute.
There is one final issue that must be addressed before the State can calculate the exact number of credits due to each inmate. That issue concerns the three differеnt definitions of prison overcrowding. Prison overcrowding occurs when the prison population exceeds the “lawful capacity” of the prison system.12 Under all the overcrowding statutes, the award of credits was activated when the prison population exceeded the relevant percentage (either 97.5%, 98%, or 99%) of “lawful capacity.” “Lawful capacity,” however, was defined differently during various time periods. When the Emergency Gain Time statute was first enacted in 1983, the statute defined “lawful capacity” as “the total capacity of all institutions and facilities in the prison system as determined either by the Legislature or by the courts.” See
The Department argues that it can change and apply retrospectively the definition of prison overcrowding by changing the percentage over which it is still “lawful” to exceed the total design capacity. The Department makes this assertion because it believes that it has always been understood that the definition of overcrowding could be changed. We cannot agree. We conclude that the definition of overcrowding, as it was defined at the time of the inmate‘s offense, is part and parcel of the relevant version of the overcrowding statute that should be applied to each inmate. We agree that the legislature may change the definition of prison overcrowding; however, since that change as рroven by the Department‘s charts can drastically reduce or even eliminate the credits an inmate might have received under the prior definition, the Department cannot apply the definition retrospectively to inmates whose offenses were committed prior to the effective date of the change.
Accordingly, the first definition of “lawful capacity” applies to inmates whose offenses occurred on or after June 16, 1983,
IV. Conclusion
Long before Lynce, the United States Supreme Court made clear in Weaver that, as concerns gain time, if a “new provision constricts the inmate‘s opportunity to earn early release, [it] thereby makes more onerous the punishment for crimes committed before its enactment [and] runs afoul of the prohibition against ex post facto laws.” Weaver, 450 U.S. at 35-36, 101 S.Ct. 960. Lynce merely clarified that overcrowding credits must be treated the same as regular gain time. By retrospectively subjecting the petitioners to the more restrictive eligibility requirements of the subsequently enacted Control Release program, the State effectively repealed the prior programs in effect at the time of the petitioners’ offenses and severely curtailed the availability of such credits to the petitioners, in violation of both Weaver and Lynce. The State must now rectify its error.
We are cognizant of the tremendous effort the recalculation required under this opinion will entail on the part of the Department. Nevertheless, we believe this result is compelled by the decisions in Lynce and Weaver.
We are bound to follow the law as expressed by the United States Supreme Court. This Court has repeatedly accepted the State‘s view concerning retroactive legislation restricting gain time. Each of those times the United States Supreme Court vacated our decisions. See Weaver v. Graham, 376 So.2d 855 (Fla.1979), rev‘d, 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981); Calamia v. Singletary, 686 So.2d 1337 (Fla.1996), vacated, 520 U.S. 1141, 117 S.Ct. 1309, 137 L.Ed.2d 473 (1997); State v. Lancaster, 687 So.2d 1299 (Fla. 1997), vacated, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 37, 139 L.Ed.2d 5 (1997). We are compelled, therefore, to grant the petitioners’ pеtitions for writ of habeas corpus.14 Because we trust that the State will fully comply with the dictates of this opinion, we withhold issuance of the writ.
It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., and SHAW and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
WELLS, J., dissents with an opinion.
PARIENTE, J., recused.
WELLS, J., dissenting.
I dissent in this case because I believe that the majority has unnecessarily and unreasonably extended the United States Supreme Court‘s decision in Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433, 117 S.Ct. 891, 137 L.Ed.2d 63 (1997), far beyond that necessary to comply with that Court‘s mandate.
The majority erroneously ignores the question which the Supreme Court expressly states that it decided in Lynce:
The question presented by this case is whether a 1992 statute canceling such credits for certain classes of offenders after they had been awarded—indeed, after they had resulted in the prisoners’ release from custody—violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Federal Constitution.
Id. at 435, 117 S.Ct. 891 (emphasis added). Fundamental to a correct analysis is the recognition that Lynce and this case are patently factually distinguishable. Completely unlike the question presented in Lynce, here we have a situation in which the receipt of the subject credits was not only speculative at the time of the petitioners’ offenses but they were simply never awarded. Since they were never awarded, they could not have been retroactively canceled. Furthermore, contrary to Lynce‘s situation, these prisoners were never released. Therefore, neither of the two essential factual components of Lynce (actual award and then actual release) are present.
The reason these two basic factual components were absent is that the petitioners were not in the custody of the Department at the time that such credits were being awarded.15 To give the petitioners prison overcrowding reduction credits when they were not even in prison during the time frame in which such credits were being awarded is to engage in a purely fictionalized scenario of what the petitioners might have received if they had been where they were not. I do not believe the United States Supreme Court intended for us tо engage in such fantasy.
I am quite aware that the Supreme Court in Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981), held in respect to the earned gain-time statutes that a law need not impair a “vested right” in order to violate the ex post facto prohibition. This clearly comports with reason in respect to the availability of earned gain time. As the United States Supreme Court wrote, a prisoner is “disadvantaged by the reduced opportunity to shorten his time in prison simply through good conduct.” Id. at 33-34, 101 S.Ct. 960. However, contrary to the majority‘s reflexive reaction, I am not persuaded that the United States Supreme Court‘s decision in Lynce forces an illogical equating of earned gain-time credits and unpredictable prison overcrowding credits for every ex post facto analysis purpose. Rather, the United States Supreme Court merely said that the motivation of the legislature in passing the various gain-time statutes was immaterial for purposes of ex post facto analysis. 519 U.S. at 442, 117 S.Ct. 891. This should not be translated to mean that every person who ultimately ends up in the prison system is entitled to the benefit of such credits regardless of that person‘s actual factual circumstances.
While the Supreme Court‘s decision in Lynce and its reversal in Calamia v. Singletary, 520 U.S. 1141, 117 S.Ct. 1309, 137 L.Ed.2d 473 (Fla.1997), of this Court‘s decision in Calamia v. Singletary, 686 So.2d 1337 (Fla.1996), may have eliminated the distinction between such credits after they have been awarded, this simply does not require the conclusion that there is no longer any distinction between such credits even before they have been awarded. Obviously, the credits in Lynce‘s situation were no longer speculative since the credits had been specifically in his records, were awarded to him, and had been acted upon to release Lynce. Lynce was not really a decision about a prisoner‘s “opportunities” for early release but rather a decision about the retroactive cancellation
Even after Lynce, several courts have indicated that a proper ex post facto analysis still includes a determination of whеther the sought-after early release opportunity is or was “speculative.” In Hallmark v. Johnson, 118 F.3d 1073 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 576, 139 L.Ed.2d 415 (1997), for example, the court concluded that although the new gain-time provision at issue there had the potential to constrict the petitioners’ opportunities for early release to some degree, that contingency would only occur if and when a number of additional speculative variables came into fruition. Accordingly, the court found no ex post facto violation. In Wottlin v. Fleming, 136 F.3d 1032 (5th Cir. 1998), the court found that since Wootlin‘s eligibility for early release had always been subject to the discretion of prison officials, his opportunity for release had been speculative from the beginning. The prison officials’ determination that they would not exercise their discretion for violent offenders like Wootlin did little to Wootlin‘s hope for release since he might never have bеen chosen for release under the previous policy. Id. at 1037. Accordingly, as in Hallmark, the court found no ex post facto violation.
The Supreme Court seems to have recognized in Lynce itself that the “speculative” component expounded upon in California Department of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499, 506-513, 115 S.Ct. 1597, 131 L.Ed.2d 588 (1995), remains intact when it reasoned that “[i]n this case, unlike in Morales, the actual course of events makes it unnecessary to speculate about what might have happened.” Lynce, 519 U.S. at 446, 117 S.Ct. 891. In Morales, the petitioner‘s chances of receiving parole had always been subject to the discretion of the parole board. Since Morales was serving sentences for several murder convictions, his chances for early release had never been very good. A later change in the parole rules extending the time period between parole considerations for persons convicted of more than one murder did little to change Morales’ chances for early release. The Supreme Court found the rule changes had only a speculative effect on Morales and concluded that such changes do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Morales, 514 U.S. at 507-509, 518, 115 S.Ct. 1597.
I believe that the same conclusion should apply to this case. In this case, all of the petitioners committed their offenses while the emergency gain time statute was in existence. However, that statute could not go into effect until the Secretary of the Department of Corrections both certified certain information concerning the prison population and prison capacity and advised the Governor of the existence of a state of emergency. See
The Deрartment of Corrections has provided information indicating that no such
Some of the petitioners claim credits under several of the later-enacted overcrowding statutes administered by the Department, as discussed in detail in the majority opinion. While these statutes did not require a declaration of a state of emergency, they did require a certification from the Secretary that the pertinent prison capacity level had been reached. At that point, the Secretary was given discretion to award credits. See
In sum, while I understand that the mаjority concludes that it is compelled to grant these petitions, having been reversed in other gain-time cases by the Supreme Court, I believe that this reflexive reaction is inappropriate here because what is presented is clearly distinguishable from Lynce.
Arranged by Programs Result Offense Date
Petitioner Offense Emergency Emergency Admin. Prov. Prov. Cont. R. Cont. R. Cont. R. Cont. R. Gain Time Gain Time Gain Time Credits Credits below at or below between between 98% 99% 98% 97.5% 98% 97.5% 99% 99-100% 99-100% (TC) 6/16/83- 6/2/86- 2/5/87- 7/1/88- 9/1/90- 9/1/90- 6/17/93- 4/25/94- 6/10/95- 6/1/86 6/16/93 6/30/88 8/31/90 6/16/93 6/16/93 4/24/94 6/9/95 present-TC Gomez 2* Murder X Entitled only to 9/11/86 limited credits under Emerg. Gain Time Kivet Manslaughter X X Entitled to both 10/18/87 Emerg. GT & Admin. GT** Hock 2* Murder X X Entitled to both 10/1/88 Emerg. GT & Prov. Credits** Goodwin DUI X X Entitled to both 5/6/89 Manslaughter Emerg. GT & Prov. Credits** Galvis Drag X Not eligible Not eligible Entitled only to 9/24/92 Trafficking until until limited credits mandatory mandatory under Emerg. Gain completed completed Time ** but no double credits for same period of time
Effective Date Group 31 Group 42 Group 53
06/30/1991 76 days 07/31/1991 109 days 10/31/1991 180 days 11/30/1991 172 days 04/30/1992 184 days 05/31/1993 220 days 06/30/1993 40 days 40 days 07/15/1993 07/31/1993 16 days 16 days 08/31/1993 51 days 51 days 09/30/1993 32 days 32 days 10/31/1993 36 days 36 days 11/30/1993 51 dаys 51 days 12/31/1993 56 days 56 days 01/31/1994 36 days 36 days 1 Group 3 includes offenders whose offenses were committed on or after June 2, 1986 but before June 17, 1993 (6/2/86-6/16/93) and who are eligible for Emergency Gain Time (at the 99% threshold), but who are not eligible for Administrative Gain time, Provisional Credits, or Control Release. 2 Group 4 includes offenders whose offenses were committed on or after February 5, 1987 but before July 1, 1988 (2/5/87-6/30/88) and who are eligible for Administrative Gain Time (at the 98% threshold), but who are not eligible for Provisional Credits or Control Release. 3 Group 5 includes offenders whose offenses were committed on or after July 1, 1988 but before September 1, 1990 (7/1/88-8/31/90) and who are eligible for Provisional Credits at the 97.5% threshold), but who are not eligible for Control Release.
Total 60 days 822 days 1830 days
* Assuming Offender meets criteria under section 944.598(3), Florida Statutes (Suрp.1986).
Notes
In Thomas v. Singletary, 729 So.2d 369 (Fla.1998), we address the extension and then cancellation of prisoner‘s release dates under the Control Release program. We hold that since inmates were always on notice that their control release dates could be changed to a later date, the legislative amendments to the program and, ultimately, the cancellation of their release dаtes did not result in an ex post facto violation.
In State v. Lancaster, No. 86,312, 687 So.2d 1299 (Fla. Dec. 24, 1998), in which we are granting relief, we address gain time in the context of prisoners who had their Administrative Gain Time or Provisional Credits forfeited upon revocation of probation. We hold that the State has statutory authority to forfeit their credits, but only for criminal offenses committed after a certain date and that the 1993 statute called the Safe Streets Initiative cannot be used to cancel their gain time as concerns inmates who were released on supervision before its enactment.
While each of these opinions are similar because they discuss the effect that the United States Supreme Court decision in Lynce v. Mathis has had on gain time caselaw, they are clearly distinguishable, as discussed above.
The State, after all, could have alleviated the overcrowding problem in various ways: It could have built more prisons; it could have paroled a large category of nonviolent offenders; or it might have discontinued prosecution of some classes of victimless crimes.
Lynce, 519 U.S. at 446, 117 S.Ct. 891 (emphasis added).